Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), officials are defined as police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act. The SIU’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.

Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019

Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person.
• Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault.
• Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person.
• Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.
• Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.
• Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act

Pursuant to section 14 (i.e., law enforcement), certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• Confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by law enforcement agencies; and
• Information that could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding.

Pursuant to section 21 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• The names of persons, including civilian witnesses, and subject and witness officials;
• Location information;
• Witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence; and
• Other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation.

Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004

Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may also have been excluded from this report because its release could undermine the integrity of other proceedings involving the same incident, such as criminal proceedings, coroner’s inquests, other public proceedings and/or other law enforcement investigations.

Pursuant to section 15 of the SIU Act, the SIU may investigate the conduct of officials, be they police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission or peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act, that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.

A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.

In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the serious injury of a 40-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 24, 2025, at 11:32 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) (West Region) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On February 23, 2025, at about 5:27 p.m., Wellington County OPP responded to a domestic incident at a residence in Palmerston. The caller reported that her ex-partner, the Complainant, had assaulted her and caused damage to her property. Police officers located the Complainant a short distance from the residence as he had walked away prior to police arrival. When police officers told the Complainant that he was under arrest, he resisted and was grounded. The Complainant was taken to the OPP Teviotdale Detachment and lodged for a bail hearing. There was no injury complaint during the booking process. At 7:34 a.m., February 24, 2025, the Complainant complained of pain to his abdomen. Emergency Medical Services responded to the detachment and transported the Complainant to North Wellington Health Care - Palmerston and District Hospital (PDH), where he was diagnosed with a fractured rib. The Complainant was released back to the custody of the OPP and taken back to the detachment for a bail hearing.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/02/24 at 12:59 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/02/24 at 2:49 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

40-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on March 4, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed on March 11, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around a park area located south of Main Street at its intersection with Norman Street, Palmerston.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Communications Recordings & Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report

At 5:26 p.m., February 23, 2025, a man contacted the OPP because his neighbour had come to his door. She asked him to call the police because the Complainant had forced his way into her home. He supplied his address in Palmerston.

At 5:28 p.m., police information was broadcast about a violent and heated incident at a woman’s home. WO #3 advised that he was familiar with the address. Further information indicated that a very scared woman had run to a neighbour asking that he call police. WO #1 and WO #2, and the SO, acknowledged the call for service.

At 5:37 p.m., WO #3 arrived in the area, immediately followed by WO #1 and WO #2. The woman had returned to her home. WO #1 broadcast that the man, the Complainant, had come back looking for his telephone but had since departed. A police record check indicated the Complainant was violent, on probation, and known to police.

At 5:50 p.m., WO #1 broadcast that the Complainant had been arrested. The SO repeated the information. WO #3 confirmed a charge for one count of mischief.

At 6:05 p.m., WO #1 and WO #2 transported the Complainant to the OPP Teviotdale Detachment.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between February 24, 2025, and March 11, 2025:

• General Occurrence Report
• CAD Report summary
• Arrest Report
• Charge Summary
• Involved Officers’ Report
• Prisoner Custody Record
• Communications recordings
• In-car camera recordings
• Scene photographs
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, and WO #4

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from PDH on March 5, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the late afternoon of February 23, 2025, police were dispatched to an address in Palmerston with respect to a domestic disturbance. A 911 call had been received indicating that a male had forced his way into a female’s home. Officers arrived on scene to find the male had left. They spoke to the female and satisfied themselves that there were grounds to arrest the male for mischief in relation to property he had damaged at the residence.

The male was the Complainant. He was a short distance from the female’s address when he was confronted by several OPP officers, including the SO, in a park area. There followed a physical engagement between the Complainant and the officers in which the former sustained a fractured rib.

The Complainant was transported to an OPP detachment following his arrest. He was subsequently taken to hospital where his injury was diagnosed.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code - Protection of Persons Acting Under Authority

25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

Section 430, Criminal Code - Mischief

430(1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully

(a) destroys or damages property;

(b) renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective;

(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property; or

(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by OPP officers in Palmerston on February 23, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming the SO the subject official. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s arrest and injury.

Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.

Based on the information conveyed to police via the 911 call, and their inquiries at the scene regarding damaged property, I am satisfied the officers were within their rights in seeking to arrest the Complainant for mischief contrary to section 430 of the Criminal Code.

I am also satisfied that the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing the use of unlawful force by the police during the Complainant’s arrest. There is a version of events proffered in the evidence indicating the Complainant was thrown to the ground by several officers in the park, and punched in the head and kicked in the ribs with little resistance on his part. On the other hand, WO #1 and WO #2, who, together with the SO, participated in the arrest, say that the Complainant adopted an aggressive posture towards the officers from the outset and refused to surrender his arms to be handcuffed on the ground. According to WO #1, following a brief struggle on the ground, the SO punched the Complainant once in the ribs, after which the officer was able to control his right arm behind the back. On this rendition of events, the singular strike would not appear a disproportionate use of force in order overcome the Complainant’s resistance and secure him in custody. As there is no reason to believe that the former version of events is any likelier to be closer to the truth than the evidence proffered by the officers, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the force used by the SO was unwarranted.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s fracture was the result of force used by the SO, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injury was attributable to any unlawful conduct on the part of the officer. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: June 20, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit